User avatar
Acey559
Posts: 1333
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:30 pm

Re: What’s the emergency at EWR?

Sun Jun 16, 2019 6:04 pm

arcticcruiser wrote:
Acey559 wrote:
One thing I’ve noticed flying the 757 (and the 767 for that matter) is if the reversers are deployed before the nosewheel is on the ground, the nose has a tendency to want to drop pretty rapidly so one has to be ready for that. It’s not violent and nothing that can’t be overcome, but if it’s true that the FO is on IOE, he/she may have popped the reversers and not been ready to arrest the nose. Of course, I have no idea if that’s what happened here, but I can see it happening fairly easily with someone new to the jet.


Normal procedure, deploy reversers on main gear touchdown. Hold the elevator back and land the nose gear. Normal. And works. Done a lot of IOEs, not had a problem. Yet.

The Chinese did manage to write one off this way.


Agreed. I just finished check airman training and should have my letter soon. Ironically one of the things we touched on in the sim was this very thing. A good reminder for us all to always be on our toes and give thorough briefings.
In Dixie Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie.
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: What’s the emergency at EWR?

Sun Jun 16, 2019 6:17 pm

longhauler wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:

Dont be so sure on that.

If it is a new hire, he/she is on probation, this is a high profile incident...and I am not sure if he/she is fine


Airlines don’t fire pilots over accidents; it creates a culture of fear where someone may be influenced to not report an incident or behave differently to avoid one and cause even more harm.

It has to be proven to be willful lack of regard for procedures or proven substance abuse to result in a firing over an accident. If anyone is to blame, it could be the training department.


There have been many precedents set in the past in North America where an incident in an aircraft flown by an IOETC with a trainee, resulted in both being retrained and retested. The premise being that the trainee has a reasonable right to being properly trained.

If the conditions during the incident warranted, sometimes the IOETC should have been the PF.

However, what you state is correct. Namely if the trainee can be shown to be negligent then he may well be released. Some trends are best handled during probation.



This. The only way the pilot on IOE would be disciplined in addition to what’s stated above is if he/she failed a drug screen. Highly doubtful. Guaranteed both pilots will get additional training.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 2885
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:05 pm

ikramerica wrote:
For those wondering where UA will get a proper 757 for replacement if write off, they don’t need one. Could be they can increase 767 use, delay airframe retirement, take up non-international slack with other narrow bodies, etc.


Also, United has 40 other frames like this. The major issue is that these 757s have Polaris, and no other UA narrow-body has Polaris (other than the p.s. frames).
 
CONTACREW
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:12 pm

OneSexyL1011 wrote:
UA444 wrote:
reminds me of the World DC-10 accident in BWI in 2009. Similar damage on that DC-10 and 757s aren’t in high demand anymore. This is also an old plane, so it’s beer cans soon.

Maybe one of the real UA 757s can come in and replace it.

Real UA 757's?


He’s referring to the sub UA 75s parked in the desert with P&W engines. Anything that came from CO is not considered UA to him so pay him no attention.
Flight Attendants prepare doors for departure, cross check verify straps standby for all call
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:45 pm

OneSexyL1011 wrote:
UA444 wrote:
reminds me of the World DC-10 accident in BWI in 2009. Similar damage on that DC-10 and 757s aren’t in high demand anymore. This is also an old plane, so it’s beer cans soon.

Maybe one of the real UA 757s can come in and replace it.

Real UA 757's?


9+ years past the merger announcement and some people still haven't moved forward. Generally, the sCO 752s are more capable (the incident aircraft was one of them) and post-merger UA has retired most of the sUA 752s (Fedex took some). Still, that doesn't stop looking through rose colored glasses for some...
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
N649DL
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: What’s the emergency at EWR?

Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:45 pm

STT757 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
DocLightning wrote:

N181AN and N182AN are also in the desert and have RR engines, and they're newer (1999 build) than N26123. Maybe AA would be willing to offload one for the right price?


Good Question, IDK but historically UA hasn't been about acquiring second hand 757s. They got 3 ex-HA 763 recently, and even that was a surprising move.

The sUA frames in the desert are likely paid off already and just lying around collecting dust. For instance IIRC N545UA or N555UA is stored out there and had Scimitar Winglets installed for testing shortly before retirement.


12 of their 21 757-300s were acquired second hand by CO from ATA.

Besides that I’m really hoping they’re able to repair this aircraft and return it to service. Might be a good aircraft to put the new livery and new cabin installation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I was referring to the 757-200 not the -300. The 753s from ATA came to CO because they were liquidated.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 3920
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Sun Jun 16, 2019 10:56 pm

FlyHossD wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
UA444 wrote:
reminds me of the World DC-10 accident in BWI in 2009. Similar damage on that DC-10 and 757s aren’t in high demand anymore. This is also an old plane, so it’s beer cans soon.

Maybe one of the real UA 757s can come in and replace it.

Real UA 757's?


9+ years past the merger announcement and some people still haven't moved forward. Generally, the sCO 752s are more capable (the incident aircraft was one of them) and post-merger UA has retired most of the sUA 752s (Fedex took some). Still, that doesn't stop looking through rose colored glasses for some...


Nope. I was working the retro CO themed 737 today and a fellow ramper came up and said “man, what an ugly looking airplane” I said “looks good to me!”. She scoffed and said it needed to be repainted.

Luckily these old grouches are on the way out.
Lighten up while you still can, don't even try to understand, just find a place to make your stand and take it easy
 
UA444
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Sun Jun 16, 2019 11:45 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
Real UA 757's?


9+ years past the merger announcement and some people still haven't moved forward. Generally, the sCO 752s are more capable (the incident aircraft was one of them) and post-merger UA has retired most of the sUA 752s (Fedex took some). Still, that doesn't stop looking through rose colored glasses for some...


Nope. I was working the retro CO themed 737 today and a fellow ramper came up and said “man, what an ugly looking airplane” I said “looks good to me!”. She scoffed and said it needed to be repainted.

Luckily these old grouches are on the way out.

Maybe she thinks you’re the old grouch.

Funny, using your example, the message to “move on” doesn’t apply to repainting a plane with another airline’s name on it. But real United anything else must be eliminated to not hurt some’s feelings. Do as I say, not as I do.

As for this 757, the damage is extensive. There are reports from passengers you could see the floor buckle upwards in the cabin. The cost to repair it outweighs what a 22 year old 757 is worth. Maybe if cargo companies were still buying them en masse, but they’ve moved on to 738s. It’s a shame it’s not a 737 MAX being written off, but that’s the breaks.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Sun Jun 16, 2019 11:47 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
For those wondering where UA will get a proper 757 for replacement if write off, they don’t need one. Could be they can increase 767 use, delay airframe retirement, take up non-international slack with other narrow bodies, etc.


Also, United has 40 other frames like this. The major issue is that these 757s have Polaris, and no other UA narrow-body has Polaris (other than the p.s. frames).

The 41 pmCO 752s have 16 lie flat BF seats, which are not considered Polaris. Seats are the same as those on pmCO 772s that are being converted to Polaris with all aisle access.

The 41 pmCO units joined the fleet new between 1994 and 2000. N26123 is in the middle of the pack being built in 1997. They are used on limited Trasatlantic services, Transcons and some flights that need higher performance.

pmUA units have been reduced from about 100 to the current 15, all or which have the same BF seats, just have a higher F seat count and used on transcon services. There are 2 more units scheduled to exit the fleet this year, probably the 1993-1998 build units. N505UA, which headed to GYR this year, was to be pulled from the desert to re-enter service to cover for MAX issues - that aircraft is still in GYR at the moment.

The pmUA units have more cycles because CO heavily used the 752 on Transatlantic service for years. Maybe UA will choose to place N505UA into service and/or keep one of the two scheduled to exit this year, probably depending on the MAX situation. Of course, major maintenance checks are a big reason for older aircraft to be retired.
 
Max Q
Posts: 7708
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:03 am

Spent many years flying the 757 and 767


You have to take great care when lowering the nosewheel after landing in the ‘75


It has a consistent tendency to slam down and you have to finesse it down carefully


And unlike the 767 which has very nice, linear and powerful control in pitch the 757 has a significant ‘dead spot’ in pitch notable on rotation and de rotation, you start lowering the nose after landing, then it ‘hangs up’ you then have to gently push a tad more, then immediately back a bit to land the nosewheel gently


It takes a lot of practice and even with experience it can still bite you, another issue is you’ll think the nosewheel is down and relax pressure then, slam


This sort of incident has happened several times in the history of the 757


The 767 is a quantum leap improvement in control authority over the 757


Interestingly the 757-300 doesn’t really have this issue, the take off and landing speeds are substantially higher giving more aerodynamic control


I found landing with flaps 25 instead of 30 greatly alleviated this issue, the lower drag and slightly higher speed allowed the nose to be gently lowered with more control authority and consistency
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns and the love of them by a loud minority are a malignant and deadly cancer inflicted on American society
 
splitterz
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:40 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:18 am

Max Q wrote:
Spent many years flying the 757 and 767


You have to take great care when lowering the nosewheel after landing in the ‘75


It has a consistent tendency to slam down and you have to finesse it down carefully


And unlike the 767 which has very nice, linear and powerful control in pitch the 757 has a significant ‘dead spot’ in pitch notable on rotation and de rotation, you start lowering the nose after landing, then it ‘hangs up’ you then have to gently push a tad more, then immediately back a bit to land the nosewheel gently


It takes a lot of practice and even with experience it can still bite you, another issue is you’ll think the nosewheel is down and relax pressure then, slam


This sort of incident has happened several times in the history of the 757


The 767 is a quantum leap improvement in control authority over the 757


Interestingly the 757-300 doesn’t really have this issue, the take off and landing speeds are substantially higher giving more aerodynamic control


I found landing with flaps 25 instead of 30 greatly alleviated this issue, the lower drag and slightly higher speed allowed the nose to be gently lowered with more control authority and consistency


Very interesting. Thanks for the write up.
 
User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:40 am

CONTACREW wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
UA444 wrote:
reminds me of the World DC-10 accident in BWI in 2009. Similar damage on that DC-10 and 757s aren’t in high demand anymore. This is also an old plane, so it’s beer cans soon.

Maybe one of the real UA 757s can come in and replace it.

Real UA 757's?


He’s referring to the sub UA 75s parked in the desert with P&W engines. Anything that came from CO is not considered UA to him so pay him no attention.

Ahh so pretty much the underpowered, under performing, lesser performance weighted, less capable, no raft or ETOPS, and lower avionic and communication optioned 757's then. Got it. Hate to burst his bubble but the RR birds are a much better version of the 757.
 
UA444
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:45 am

OneSexyL1011 wrote:
CONTACREW wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
Real UA 757's?


He’s referring to the sub UA 75s parked in the desert with P&W engines. Anything that came from CO is not considered UA to him so pay him no attention.

Ahh so pretty much the underpowered, under performing, lesser performance weighted, less capable, no raft or ETOPS, and lower avionic and communication optioned 757's then. Got it. Hate to burst his bubble but the RR birds are a much better version of the 757.

The PW 757 has better fuel burn, is quieter, more range, and is better looking. Funny how DL, NW, and TW all flew some of the longest 757 flights with PW powered ones. Meanwhile a slight breeze and it’s a fuel stop for RR. PW sounds like a refined V8, RR is buzzy General Motors 4 cylinder.

As for the UA 757s, some in fact do have ETOPS, life rafts, and they all meet the new avionics requirements from the FAA. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Last edited by UA444 on Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
UPS757Pilot
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:22 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:47 am

CALTECH wrote:
Reports are the acft bounced 3 times and came down on the nose landing gear at least once. Crane with slings and a trailer used for towing due to stability and structural concerns. NTSB quarantine in Hangar 55. Both nose wheel says and 4 main wheel says are in quarantine also.
We practice these scenarios in the simulator and unless you are stabilized after a bounce, a go-around is the best course of action. I wonder if the NTSB will take a look at this one.
 
User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:07 am

UA444 wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
CONTACREW wrote:

He’s referring to the sub UA 75s parked in the desert with P&W engines. Anything that came from CO is not considered UA to him so pay him no attention.

Ahh so pretty much the underpowered, under performing, lesser performance weighted, less capable, no raft or ETOPS, and lower avionic and communication optioned 757's then. Got it. Hate to burst his bubble but the RR birds are a much better version of the 757.

The PW 757 has better fuel burn, is quieter, more range, and is better looking. Funny how DL, NW, and TW all flew some of the longest 757 flights with PW powered ones. Meanwhile a slight breeze and it’s a fuel stop for RR. PW sounds like a refined V8, RR is buzzy General Motors 4 cylinder.

As for the UA 757s, some in fact do have ETOPS, life rafts, and they all meet the new avionics requirements from the FAA. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Compared to the RR 757's:
No SATCOM
No HF Data Link
Single HF
No 8.33 radios
No RSP/RCP ICAO communication minimums
Smaller fuel tanks
Less range (NW/Delta has higher weighted and fuel capacity versions)
Smaller less powerful engines
Lower AFM operating weights
No GPS Until about 2016 finally (post merger of course)
No Rafts or ETOPS except for 15 out of the original what? 100?

Yeah, they can just keep doing SFO-EWR-SFO. We'll put the real 757 on the real routes. There is a reason why they never leave the continental 48 anymore.
 
DualQual
Posts: 701
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:10 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:16 am

Never argue with an idiot.
There's no known cure for stupid
 
catiii
Posts: 3159
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: What’s the emergency at EWR?

Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:09 am

MD80Ttail wrote:
longhauler wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:

Airlines don’t fire pilots over accidents; it creates a culture of fear where someone may be influenced to not report an incident or behave differently to avoid one and cause even more harm.

It has to be proven to be willful lack of regard for procedures or proven substance abuse to result in a firing over an accident. If anyone is to blame, it could be the training department.


There have been many precedents set in the past in North America where an incident in an aircraft flown by an IOETC with a trainee, resulted in both being retrained and retested. The premise being that the trainee has a reasonable right to being properly trained.

If the conditions during the incident warranted, sometimes the IOETC should have been the PF.

However, what you state is correct. Namely if the trainee can be shown to be negligent then he may well be released. Some trends are best handled during probation.



This. The only way the pilot on IOE would be disciplined in addition to what’s stated above is if he/she failed a drug screen. Highly doubtful. Guaranteed both pilots will get additional training.


Not if the anti skid failed in some way...
 
slcguy
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:09 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:39 am

What is it with the 757 haters on this site? Yes the 757 can be bent if nose is lowered too rapidly, more common on the 767. Not appearent in this case. In this case a bad landing causing blown main gear tires and a bounce that the pilots didn't/couldn't control resulted in a nose wheel first touchdown creating significant damage
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1789
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:00 am

Is it true that “pilots trained in the US would have successfully been able to control this situation”.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:03 pm

OneSexy1010:

Thanks for showing the info on UA 752s.

I would think N26123 would be repaired based on 1.) cycles until next big check, 2.) cost, 3.) time out of service - I would assume it would not be repaired before the summer is over and the capability of this aircraft easily is covered by the 40 other RR powered 752s. Some type of extended MAX grounding situation may play into the decision, but I'd be shocked if the MAX are not back in the air prior to a completed repair.

Actually I show out of 100, UA had 19 ETOPS 752s or which 7 are still in service. They also had 8 overwater equipped aircraft that might have been used to FL or maybe Caribbean routes.

UA flew the heck out of their 752 with high hours and high cycles with the vast majority flying domestic hub-to-hub type flying. HI was flown with ETOPS aircraft and a subfleet flew ps services. I am unaware of how UA maintained the 752 interior, but I understand there were/are more mechanical delays/cancellations than the 739ER.

With new 739ER units coming in, UA decided to retire the vast majority of 752s and save something like a million dollars per unit in annual cost, even considering the minor seat loss. After slimline conversion, the 739ER picked up another 12 seats and only trails the 752 seat count by 3. UA either returned leases or sold the 752s to FedEx, so it was a hodgepodge of 1989 to 1999 build units currently in service. The 15 current units are planned to be retired and replaced by 739MAX10 units with similar higher premium seating count.

If UA444 states the UA 752 is better, then UA was misusing the aircraft as to my knowledge it never did a TransAtlantic flight or Pacific (I believe CO flew the 752 on GUM routes for a period of time). The 41 ex-CO birds are newer and have fewer cycles - there are plenty to fly the fewer TransAtlantic narrowbodied flights and cover some transcons and other flights that need higher performance to Central America/northern S. America.

Since I track the fleet, UA currently always has 1 to 3 (usually 2) of the 15 752s in maintenance, a high percentage vs. other fleets. I believe they probably have more ground time in EWR and SFO to be maintained. At the moment, UA flies the pmUA 752 only on EWR/BOS-LAX/SFO and today there are 30 flights scheduled on 15 aircraft, with five flying 3 cycles, seven flying 2 cycles and one flying 1 cycle plus N590UA in maintenance.

N505UA was retired in Feb 2019 and was sked to ferry to MIA a moth ago to cover for MAX groundings - it still sits in GYR. Two more 752s are/were due for retirement in 2019.
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2299
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

Re: What’s the emergency at EWR?

Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:17 pm

Aesma wrote:
wiss wrote:
With this kind of damage on the nose gear, is possible to tow the plane? If not, what other ways of moving it could be used?


Towing using the main gear ?


Pick up the front gear with a SuperTug, and off you go.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3270
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:48 pm

OneSexyL1011 wrote:
UA444 wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
Ahh so pretty much the underpowered, under performing, lesser performance weighted, less capable, no raft or ETOPS, and lower avionic and communication optioned 757's then. Got it. Hate to burst his bubble but the RR birds are a much better version of the 757.

The PW 757 has better fuel burn, is quieter, more range, and is better looking. Funny how DL, NW, and TW all flew some of the longest 757 flights with PW powered ones. Meanwhile a slight breeze and it’s a fuel stop for RR. PW sounds like a refined V8, RR is buzzy General Motors 4 cylinder.

As for the UA 757s, some in fact do have ETOPS, life rafts, and they all meet the new avionics requirements from the FAA. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Compared to the RR 757's:
No SATCOM
No HF Data Link
Single HF
No 8.33 radios
No RSP/RCP ICAO communication minimums
Smaller fuel tanks
Less range (NW/Delta has higher weighted and fuel capacity versions)
Smaller less powerful engines
Lower AFM operating weights
No GPS Until about 2016 finally (post merger of course)
No Rafts or ETOPS except for 15 out of the original what? 100?

Yeah, they can just keep doing SFO-EWR-SFO. We'll put the real 757 on the real routes. There is a reason why they never leave the continental 48 anymore.


Some uninformed individuals are so misinformed......
United 757-222 MTOW 240,000
United 757-224 MTOW 255,000
The gun is a precious Symbol of Freedom
Criminals are the deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence of tyrants who disarm their citizens
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3270
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:57 pm

Pop the misinformed's bubble on 777s too, oh noes........

B777-222 .....MTOW 545,000
B777-222ER MTOW 648,000
B777-224ER MTOW 656,000

Boeing AOG Team is going to perform a damage assessment on 123.
The gun is a precious Symbol of Freedom
Criminals are the deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence of tyrants who disarm their citizens
 
codc10
Posts: 2540
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:09 pm

I'm not so sure what the issue is, re: UA 757s. United ordered its 757s to be domestic/transcon people movers, essentially filling out the network role of the DC-8. It didn't need max performance for those missions, so they weren't spec'd to the highest gross weights or most powerful engines, nor were they fitted with oceanic navigation/communications equipment, especially as new standards came about in the late 90s, 2000s and beyond.

CO, on the other hand, initially had a dual role for its 757s, and eventually transitioned the entire fleet to transoceanic capability, requiring ETOPS, higher gross weights and, at the time of the initial order in the early 90s, the most powerful engine option available. As time went on, because of the mission profile, avionics, navigation and communications equipment were upgraded.

The 757-222s were replaced by an airplane that could perform virtually all of its mission profile at substantially lower cost... not a better passenger experience.

Still, it seems like the UA vs. CO nonsense will never go away...
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3270
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: What’s the emergency at EWR?

Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:58 pm

litz wrote:
Aesma wrote:
wiss wrote:
With this kind of damage on the nose gear, is possible to tow the plane? If not, what other ways of moving it could be used?


Towing using the main gear ?


Pick up the front gear with a SuperTug, and off you go.


Crane with a sling, then resting on a trailer............

No Supertug

Image

Image
The gun is a precious Symbol of Freedom
Criminals are the deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence of tyrants who disarm their citizens
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3270
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:01 pm

UPS757Pilot wrote:
CALTECH wrote:
Reports are the acft bounced 3 times and came down on the nose landing gear at least once. Crane with slings and a trailer used for towing due to stability and structural concerns. NTSB quarantine in Hangar 55. Both nose wheel says and 4 main wheel says are in quarantine also.
We practice these scenarios in the simulator and unless you are stabilized after a bounce, a go-around is the best course of action. I wonder if the NTSB will take a look at this one.


Pushovers to reach the ground don't seem to end well in video's of such incidents. NTSB is on site and doing their investigation.........
The gun is a precious Symbol of Freedom
Criminals are the deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence of tyrants who disarm their citizens
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:41 pm

codc10 wrote:
KVH68 wrote:
I was told United is self insured.


I believe UAL hull insurance lead is Global Aerospace but there may be a self-insured retention of a certain amount that UA is responsible for before the policy kicks in (like a deductible).

Most airlines self-insure older NB hulls, even when used to secure new credit. Some insurers will bundle hull insurance with other cover, but after deducting deductible / excess, often not enough left even for removal and airport compensation.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3270
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:32 pm

UPS757Pilot wrote:
CALTECH wrote:
Reports are the acft bounced 3 times and came down on the nose landing gear at least once. Crane with slings and a trailer used for towing due to stability and structural concerns. NTSB quarantine in Hangar 55. Both nose wheel says and 4 main wheel says are in quarantine also.
We practice these scenarios in the simulator and unless you are stabilized after a bounce, a go-around is the best course of action. I wonder if the NTSB will take a look at this one.

Preliminary scuttlebutt is that the plane was bounced then the tires blew. Should've pulled up and performed a go around.

'HARD LANDING ON 22L EWR'

Boeing AOG Reps to provide repair feasibility report by Friday.
The gun is a precious Symbol of Freedom
Criminals are the deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence of tyrants who disarm their citizens
 
estorilm
Posts: 715
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:20 pm

F9Animal wrote:
Proof that the 757 is a tank!!! Those things can take a beating. They dont make them like that anymore. :(

Glad everyone will be okay. I heard a few main wheels blew too. Anyone have any info on that?

How is that proof of anything? I mean I have no reason to doubt that it's built well - but none of us saw the impact or know what the forces were. For all we know, the opposite is true and other frames might take such a nose wheel impact better?
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:47 pm

UA444 wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
CONTACREW wrote:

He’s referring to the sub UA 75s parked in the desert with P&W engines. Anything that came from CO is not considered UA to him so pay him no attention.

Ahh so pretty much the underpowered, under performing, lesser performance weighted, less capable, no raft or ETOPS, and lower avionic and communication optioned 757's then. Got it. Hate to burst his bubble but the RR birds are a much better version of the 757.

The PW 757 has better fuel burn, is quieter, more range, and is better looking. Funny how DL, NW, and TW all flew some of the longest 757 flights with PW powered ones. Meanwhile a slight breeze and it’s a fuel stop for RR. PW sounds like a refined V8, RR is buzzy General Motors 4 cylinder.

As for the UA 757s, some in fact do have ETOPS, life rafts, and they all meet the new avionics requirements from the FAA. Sorry to burst your bubble.

You'd be saying the opposite if UA originally had RR and CO had PW.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
Williamsb747
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 9:14 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:17 pm

CALTECH wrote:
litz wrote:
Aesma wrote:

Towing using the main gear ?


Pick up the front gear with a SuperTug, and off you go.


Crane with a sling, then resting on a trailer............

No Supertug

Image

Image



Why are the reverse thrusts still open (I'm sure the engines off but still)?? To me at least it doesn't look like the engine covers or is it?
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3594
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:18 pm

OneSexyL1011 wrote:
UA444 wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
Ahh so pretty much the underpowered, under performing, lesser performance weighted, less capable, no raft or ETOPS, and lower avionic and communication optioned 757's then. Got it. Hate to burst his bubble but the RR birds are a much better version of the 757.

The PW 757 has better fuel burn, is quieter, more range, and is better looking. Funny how DL, NW, and TW all flew some of the longest 757 flights with PW powered ones. Meanwhile a slight breeze and it’s a fuel stop for RR. PW sounds like a refined V8, RR is buzzy General Motors 4 cylinder.

As for the UA 757s, some in fact do have ETOPS, life rafts, and they all meet the new avionics requirements from the FAA. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Compared to the RR 757's:
No SATCOM
No HF Data Link
Single HF
No 8.33 radios
No RSP/RCP ICAO communication minimums
Smaller fuel tanks
Less range (NW/Delta has higher weighted and fuel capacity versions)
Smaller less powerful engines

Lower AFM operating weights
No GPS Until about 2016 finally (post merger of course)
No Rafts or ETOPS except for 15 out of the original what? 100?

Yeah, they can just keep doing SFO-EWR-SFO. We'll put the real 757 on the real routes. There is a reason why they never leave the continental 48 anymore.



Increased fuel capacity? Smaller fuel tanks? Can you please expand on that, assuming you are taking about the -200 only?
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:19 pm

Williamsb747 wrote:
Why are the reverse thrusts still open (I'm sure the engines off but still)?? To me at least it doesn't look like the engine covers or is it?

Pilots never stowed them after they landed for some reason?
Captain Kevin
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3594
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:26 pm

BravoOne wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
UA444 wrote:
The PW 757 has better fuel burn, is quieter, more range, and is better looking. Funny how DL, NW, and TW all flew some of the longest 757 flights with PW powered ones. Meanwhile a slight breeze and it’s a fuel stop for RR. PW sounds like a refined V8, RR is buzzy General Motors 4 cylinder.

As for the UA 757s, some in fact do have ETOPS, life rafts, and they all meet the new avionics requirements from the FAA. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Compared to the RR 757's:
No SATCOM
No HF Data Link
Single HF
No 8.33 radios
No RSP/RCP ICAO communication minimums
Smaller fuel tanks
Less range (NW/Delta has higher weighted and fuel capacity versions)
Smaller less powerful engines

Lower AFM operating weights
No GPS Until about 2016 finally (post merger of course)
No Rafts or ETOPS except for 15 out of the original what? 100?

Yeah, they can just keep doing SFO-EWR-SFO. We'll put the real 757 on the real routes. There is a reason why they never leave the continental 48 anymore.



Increased fuel capacity? Smaller fuel tanks? Can you please expand on that, assuming you are taking about the -200 only?
No 8.33 radio spacing? If youdon't have SATCOM RSP/RCP is not a player. To the best of knowledge all 757-200s have the same basic fuel capacity and the -300 has about another 600#. Looks to me like your cherry picking.
 
User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:02 am

BravoOne wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
Compared to the RR 757's:
No SATCOM
No HF Data Link
Single HF
No 8.33 radios
No RSP/RCP ICAO communication minimums
Smaller fuel tanks
Less range (NW/Delta has higher weighted and fuel capacity versions)
Smaller less powerful engines

Lower AFM operating weights
No GPS Until about 2016 finally (post merger of course)
No Rafts or ETOPS except for 15 out of the original what? 100?

Yeah, they can just keep doing SFO-EWR-SFO. We'll put the real 757 on the real routes. There is a reason why they never leave the continental 48 anymore.



Increased fuel capacity? Smaller fuel tanks? Can you please expand on that, assuming you are taking about the -200 only?
No 8.33 radio spacing? If youdon't have SATCOM RSP/RCP is not a player. To the best of knowledge all 757-200s have the same basic fuel capacity and the -300 has about another 600#. Looks to me like your cherry picking.


I'm looking in the 757 Flight Manual right now and the -222 PW planes hold 2000 lbs less fuel than the -224's.

I never mentioned anything about the -324. (Same fuel capacity as the -224's. As a bonus, some have ozone scrubbers, which were the former ATA birds)

Also, the -222's are NOT equipped with 833 spacing and are NOT compliant for PBCS/RCP/RSP minimum comm/nav requirements and will NOT ever be updated.

I'm in the actual flight manual now. I'm not cherry picking anything. I have access to the fleet manuals, these are hard factual limits period.
 
arcticcruiser
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:16 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:43 am

BravoOne wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
Compared to the RR 757's:
No SATCOM
No HF Data Link
Single HF
No 8.33 radios
No RSP/RCP ICAO communication minimums
Smaller fuel tanks
Less range (NW/Delta has higher weighted and fuel capacity versions)
Smaller less powerful engines

Lower AFM operating weights
No GPS Until about 2016 finally (post merger of course)
No Rafts or ETOPS except for 15 out of the original what? 100?

Yeah, they can just keep doing SFO-EWR-SFO. We'll put the real 757 on the real routes. There is a reason why they never leave the continental 48 anymore.



Increased fuel capacity? Smaller fuel tanks? Can you please expand on that, assuming you are taking about the -200 only?
No 8.33 radio spacing? If youdon't have SATCOM RSP/RCP is not a player. To the best of knowledge all 757-200s have the same basic fuel capacity and the -300 has about another 600#. Looks to me like your cherry picking.


IIRC same physical tank size, but differentfuelling valves limits. Hence different AFM numbers.
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4243
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 4:13 am

estorilm wrote:
F9Animal wrote:
Proof that the 757 is a tank!!! Those things can take a beating. They dont make them like that anymore. :(

Glad everyone will be okay. I heard a few main wheels blew too. Anyone have any info on that?

How is that proof of anything? I mean I have no reason to doubt that it's built well - but none of us saw the impact or know what the forces were. For all we know, the opposite is true and other frames might take such a nose wheel impact better?


Just saying that the plane is built like a tank. That's all. Reminds me of the glory days of metal tin screaming across the skies. I still have a deep heart for the 757. It was just a personal thought
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3594
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:00 pm

OneSexyL1011 wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
BravoOne wrote:


Increased fuel capacity? Smaller fuel tanks? Can you please expand on that, assuming you are taking about the -200 only?
No 8.33 radio spacing? If youdon't have SATCOM RSP/RCP is not a player. To the best of knowledge all 757-200s have the same basic fuel capacity and the -300 has about another 600#. Looks to me like your cherry picking.


I'm looking in the 757 Flight Manual right now and the -222 PW planes hold 2000 lbs less fuel than the -224's.

I never mentioned anything about the -324. (Same fuel capacity as the -224's. As a bonus, some have ozone scrubbers, which were the former ATA birds)

Also, the -222's are NOT equipped with 833 spacing and are NOT compliant for PBCS/RCP/RSP minimum comm/nav requirements and will NOT ever be updated.

I'm in the actual flight manual now. I'm not cherry picking anything. I have access to the fleet manuals, these are hard factual limits period.



So what are the actual numbers for fuel carried, in pounds of course?
 
EWRamp
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:56 pm

Image

Here's a better picture for everyone's enjoyment
 
User avatar
DL757NYC
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:07 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:51 pm

If they need a late build 757 with RR engines AA retired a bunch with relatively low time. And there are passenger models to be had out there. From foreign carriers. There are way more RR equipt frames than PW.
 
User avatar
DL757NYC
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:07 am

Re: What’s the emergency at EWR?

Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:01 pm

DocLightning wrote:
N649DL wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
[All frames in the desert would be sUA (PW powered) 757s so while not an exact match, they probably could use a few as the ex-PS fleet is stretched thin already.


N181AN and N182AN are also in the desert and have RR engines, and they're newer (1999 build) than N26123. Maybe AA would be willing to offload one for the right price?



Some of the retired AA FRAMES from 1995 have 50k hours 20k cycles and the frames from 1999 have 53k hours 19k cycles. AND frames from 1999 with 51k 19k cycles. The cargo operators picked up some with 36k hours 13k cycles American sold practically new airplanes that can’t be replaced. DHL will fly them for another 30 years
 
N649DL
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:56 pm

DL757NYC wrote:
If they need a late build 757 with RR engines AA retired a bunch with relatively low time. And there are passenger models to be had out there. From foreign carriers. There are way more RR equipt frames than PW.


UA also has legacy PW 757s sitting in the desert as well. With only 15 ex-PS frames, there really isn't much slack in that sub fleet either.
 
User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:07 pm

BravoOne wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
No 8.33 radio spacing? If youdon't have SATCOM RSP/RCP is not a player. To the best of knowledge all 757-200s have the same basic fuel capacity and the -300 has about another 600#. Looks to me like your cherry picking.


I'm looking in the 757 Flight Manual right now and the -222 PW planes hold 2000 lbs less fuel than the -224's.

I never mentioned anything about the -324. (Same fuel capacity as the -224's. As a bonus, some have ozone scrubbers, which were the former ATA birds)

Also, the -222's are NOT equipped with 833 spacing and are NOT compliant for PBCS/RCP/RSP minimum comm/nav requirements and will NOT ever be updated.

I'm in the actual flight manual now. I'm not cherry picking anything. I have access to the fleet manuals, these are hard factual limits period.



So what are the actual numbers for fuel carried, in pounds of course?

Per the AFM at 7.1 lbs per gallon (not sure why its calculated so high in the manual, fuel usually is around 6.7-6.6 lb per gallon)
224: 81570
222: 79478

However, in flight planning the fuel limits are reduced to prevent an overfill scenario (blocked in all unimatic entries and flight planning/balancing with a density of 6.7 lbs per gallon)
224: 76.9
222: 70.0

Why? I do not know. However, those are the limits imposed by at AFM and United.
I am not cherry picking here, just stating what the facts are. Not sure why the difference, or what is preventing it. It is what it is.
 
d8s
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:09 pm

UA444 wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
CONTACREW wrote:

He’s referring to the sub UA 75s parked in the desert with P&W engines. Anything that came from CO is not considered UA to him so pay him no attention.

Ahh so pretty much the underpowered, under performing, lesser performance weighted, less capable, no raft or ETOPS, and lower avionic and communication optioned 757's then. Got it. Hate to burst his bubble but the RR birds are a much better version of the 757.

The PW 757 has better fuel burn, is quieter, more range, and is better looking. Funny how DL, NW, and TW all flew some of the longest 757 flights with PW powered ones. Meanwhile a slight breeze and it’s a fuel stop for RR. PW sounds like a refined V8, RR is buzzy General Motors 4 cylinder.

As for the UA 757s, some in fact do have ETOPS, life rafts, and they all meet the new avionics requirements from the FAA. Sorry to burst your bubble.


Bottom line, it's all about being better looking....
 
B764er
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:19 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:15 pm

That photo smells like the scrap heap. Too bad it wasn't one of the older UA752's.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3594
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:12 pm

OneSexyL1011 wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:

I'm looking in the 757 Flight Manual right now and the -222 PW planes hold 2000 lbs less fuel than the -224's.

I never mentioned anything about the -324. (Same fuel capacity as the -224's. As a bonus, some have ozone scrubbers, which were the former ATA birds)

Also, the -222's are NOT equipped with 833 spacing and are NOT compliant for PBCS/RCP/RSP minimum comm/nav requirements and will NOT ever be updated.

I'm in the actual flight manual now. I'm not cherry picking anything. I have access to the fleet manuals, these are hard factual limits period.



So what are the actual numbers for fuel carried, in pounds of course?

Per the AFM at 7.1 lbs per gallon (not sure why its calculated so high in the manual, fuel usually is around 6.7-6.6 lb per gallon)
224: 81570
222: 79478

However, in flight planning the fuel limits are reduced to prevent an overfill scenario (blocked in all unimatic entries and flight planning/balancing with a density of 6.7 lbs per gallon)
224: 76.9
222: 70.0

Why? I do not know. However, those are the limits imposed by at AFM and United.
I am not cherry picking here, just stating what the facts are. Not sure why the difference, or what is preventing it. It is what it is.


That is a huge difference from MBF docs that I have. Can't imagine what's driving that reduction other than UAL not wanting to spend any money on a AFM revision. I doubt that it's a physical limitation as opposed to a paperwork revision.

I'm not sure when the 8.33 mandate is effective in the US and really suprised that there are any non compliant radios in the inventory these days. NEXT GEN is constantly being revsied and pushed back but usually it's the FAA that dragging their feet, and the operators. Oh well, you can probably find non compliant spares pretty cheap these days.

Thanks :)
 
USAirKid
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:42 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:01 pm

EWRamp wrote:
Image

Here's a better picture for everyone's enjoyment


Some speedtape should fix that right up.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3956
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: United 757-200 hard landing at EWR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:08 pm

simple repair.. support the fuselage, remove the damaged gear, remove all structure from the cargo bay forward bulkhead forward and all below the floor line, straighten the fuselage and floor beams.. bring in a new wheel well structure then start replacing the ribs and stringers, re-skin, re-wire and do a lot of system testing... should be good to go in 3-5 months. and yes I've truncated the steps.
 
Wacker1000
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:36 pm

Re: What’s the emergency at EWR?

Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:25 pm

DocLightning wrote:
N649DL wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
[All frames in the desert would be sUA (PW powered) 757s so while not an exact match, they probably could use a few as the ex-PS fleet is stretched thin already.


N181AN and N182AN are also in the desert and have RR engines, and they're newer (1999 build) than N26123. Maybe AA would be willing to offload one for the right price?


I'm guessing United would want something well maintained with complete maintenance records.....


F9Animal wrote:
They dont make them like that anymore. :(


Was a NLG in the forward galley a customer option in 1997? ;)
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21555
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: What’s the emergency at EWR?

Wed Jun 19, 2019 10:51 pm

Wacker1000 wrote:
I'm guessing United would want something well maintained with complete maintenance records.....


AA might not be doing so hot on the customer satisfaction side of things, but I have absolute confidence in their maintenance and safety.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos